Anita Sarkeesian "I'm not a fan of gaming" leaked 2010 video reveals

[Specter Von Baren]

This thread should be locked, that she does/doesn't love gaming... who cares???

She could have said she hates anchovies and all of a sudden she does a video on the health benefits and delicious taste of anchovies, she's suddenly a monster!

People need to separate the person from the content. Also need to stop character assassinating people. I don't even know who she is, everything I know of her is from multiple threads trying to kill her character. Well at least you're free advertisement...

So....... Did you outright admit to saying, "I have no idea who this person is, but you're wrong about them."? Isn't that like saying, "I have no idea what sushi is, but it tastes horrible."?

 

[EXos]

Well..i cant believe im doing this but..i am actually gonna post here.

The Video? It tells me nothing. I dont need her to say she "does" or "doesnt" like videogames, or whether she considers herself a gamer to begin with. She is not a gamer, not a hardcore one at least. And i use hardcore in this context with "growing up" with games, literally. She is claiming to be an expert, boasting a large library funded by the kickstarter money, the first question that has to instantly pop up into your head should be "Why does she need to buy all those games?". I mean take your average youtuber, or take a bit more "prominent" ones, reviewers, lets players, whatever. They all share the hobby of gaming, they boast a large library to some extent without having to go buy them for a "study". If she was an expert on games to begin with, or it was her hobby in any serious way, she'd have a large enough library to cite countless examples without the need to actually buy any for a while, or at least not use the kickstarter cash for it.

It is obvious that gaming is not a big hobby, she may have played games, she might have only played a certain type of game, but that should disqualify her from making any claims to what she is doing, i.e. a series about tropes, their usage and the industry in which these games are made. She lacks the context of the games she has to play to give specific examples. I mean if we look at Mario superficially, its about a dude in red who eats mushrooms, plants and stars, saves a princess and throws a giant lizard into lava by jumping onto an axe. The princess is obviously a damsel, you saving her means she had to be saved, tada, damsel in distress. You dont need to play the game to see it, but playing the game might also give insight into WHY she needs to be saved, what she is saved from, the entire motivation behind the character. Of course using mario as a example doesnt work there since it really is archetypical hero saves princess, but other games that pull this? The Zelda series for example? Thats a whole different story there and varies depending on the game you use as example.

In short it is clear that she is not really a gamer in the sense that gaming is not her hobby. She has not spent the amount of time in these fictional worlds as others have who are by definition more knowledgeable on the subject of why game X uses trope Y and why it matters there. All she does is look at games, plays a bit or looks just at footage and then goes to tvtropes to find the right trope that fits the game and some kind of sexist undertone, whether it applies or not. I mean if you really want to, you can find something sexist about an apple, yes the fruit, you might have to bend logic a little but im fairly certain that you could come up with a argument as to why the apple is sexist eventually. So the problem is, either confirmation bias, in that she looks at a sexist trope and then cites examples that prove it, even if they might not (Zelda..). Or she is simply lazy in that she merely looks at a plot synopsis or a short footage of beginning and end of some game and then labels them with a trope, which is by itself just lazy.

In short, her opinion should not matter because it is evidently clear that gaming is not her hobby, therefore her expertise, or lack thereof, or opinion on the state of the industry should be considered suspect at best.

And before someone goes "but you just want to detract"..no, i dont. I dont see the problem of mysoginy or sexism in gaming, in the community? Oh yes, but blaming games doesnt solve that. It is fact that gaming has been dominated by males for most of its history, gamers were male, developers were mostly male, the community has a large amount of males in it, so you are obviously going to find the view skewed to one side right away. Does sexism exist within the gaming community? Oh yes it does, but are games at fault for it? Are the developers? Are tropes, some random thing we apply a name to somehow at fault for doing this? Not really. Look at the idea of feminism and how long it took them to get..anywhere, get voting rights for women, equal opportunities in the workplace and so forth and then come back and tell me how a medium that has at best existed for 30-40 years should be all equal right now, when it took way longer than that for our societies to get even anywhere close. She demands results now, rather than just trying to educate the community at large in a better, constructive way to include the female element into our hobby.

Read this post again and lock the thread.

The gaming industry has been for Males by Males since the beginning and slowly but surely more woman are entering the scene which is good news.
It will just take a few more years before you'll see (high Budget) games that are targeting women.
There is no need to intervene with needless regulations or other BS.

As for Sarkeesian; she cherry picks her arguments and that's where I lost interest in what she has to say.

 

[Tony2077]

Well..i cant believe im doing this but..i am actually gonna post here.

The Video? It tells me nothing. I dont need her to say she "does" or "doesnt" like videogames, or whether she considers herself a gamer to begin with. She is not a gamer, not a hardcore one at least. And i use hardcore in this context with "growing up" with games, literally. She is claiming to be an expert, boasting a large library funded by the kickstarter money, the first question that has to instantly pop up into your head should be "Why does she need to buy all those games?". I mean take your average youtuber, or take a bit more "prominent" ones, reviewers, lets players, whatever. They all share the hobby of gaming, they boast a large library to some extent without having to go buy them for a "study". If she was an expert on games to begin with, or it was her hobby in any serious way, she'd have a large enough library to cite countless examples without the need to actually buy any for a while, or at least not use the kickstarter cash for it.

It is obvious that gaming is not a big hobby, she may have played games, she might have only played a certain type of game, but that should disqualify her from making any claims to what she is doing, i.e. a series about tropes, their usage and the industry in which these games are made. She lacks the context of the games she has to play to give specific examples. I mean if we look at Mario superficially, its about a dude in red who eats mushrooms, plants and stars, saves a princess and throws a giant lizard into lava by jumping onto an axe. The princess is obviously a damsel, you saving her means she had to be saved, tada, damsel in distress. You dont need to play the game to see it, but playing the game might also give insight into WHY she needs to be saved, what she is saved from, the entire motivation behind the character. Of course using mario as a example doesnt work there since it really is archetypical hero saves princess, but other games that pull this? The Zelda series for example? Thats a whole different story there and varies depending on the game you use as example.

In short it is clear that she is not really a gamer in the sense that gaming is not her hobby. She has not spent the amount of time in these fictional worlds as others have who are by definition more knowledgeable on the subject of why game X uses trope Y and why it matters there. All she does is look at games, plays a bit or looks just at footage and then goes to tvtropes to find the right trope that fits the game and some kind of sexist undertone, whether it applies or not. I mean if you really want to, you can find something sexist about an apple, yes the fruit, you might have to bend logic a little but im fairly certain that you could come up with a argument as to why the apple is sexist eventually. So the problem is, either confirmation bias, in that she looks at a sexist trope and then cites examples that prove it, even if they might not (Zelda..). Or she is simply lazy in that she merely looks at a plot synopsis or a short footage of beginning and end of some game and then labels them with a trope, which is by itself just lazy.

In short, her opinion should not matter because it is evidently clear that gaming is not her hobby, therefore her expertise, or lack thereof, or opinion on the state of the industry should be considered suspect at best.

And before someone goes "but you just want to detract"..no, i dont. I dont see the problem of mysoginy or sexism in gaming, in the community? Oh yes, but blaming games doesnt solve that. It is fact that gaming has been dominated by males for most of its history, gamers were male, developers were mostly male, the community has a large amount of males in it, so you are obviously going to find the view skewed to one side right away. Does sexism exist within the gaming community? Oh yes it does, but are games at fault for it? Are the developers? Are tropes, some random thing we apply a name to somehow at fault for doing this? Not really. Look at the idea of feminism and how long it took them to get..anywhere, get voting rights for women, equal opportunities in the workplace and so forth and then come back and tell me how a medium that has at best existed for 30-40 years should be all equal right now, when it took way longer than that for our societies to get even anywhere close. She demands results now, rather than just trying to educate the community at large in a better, constructive way to include the female element into our hobby.

Read this post again and lock the thread.

The gaming industry has been for Males by Males since the beginning and slowly but surely more woman are entering the scene which is good news.
It will just take a few more years before you'll see (high Budget) games that are targeting women.
There is no need to intervene with needless regulations or other BS.

As for Sarkeesian; she cherry picks her arguments and that's where I lost interest in what she has to say.

i agree
taking things out of context doesn't do any good. not every female character can be a bad ass like Motoko Kusanagi from ghost in the shell

 

[Evan Waters]

Anita Sarkeesian is a false flag operation to steal are guns.

Next Week: Anita Sarkeesian is an Illuminati plug from Mars sent to destroy gaming from the inside by causing a bunch of self-proclaimed "gamers" to have brain aneurysms.

But seriously, I don't care if she plays the games or not, even considering that she probably does considering that three years is more than enough time to get into video games. Really, I don't even care about her opinion. Not that I disagree with her, necessarily. But I am getting a lot of fun out of it and all the people having mental breakdowns over the fact that she is so daring as to suggest that maybe games aren't perfect.

I have yet to even watch her videos but as far as I'm concerned she's doing the Lord's work by luring the really horrid misogynists out into the open. There is a problem in our culture when the response to "Some video games might be kinda sexist, maybe" is "Let's threaten this person with violence!"

 

[SuperScrub]

...wwwhhhhhyyyyyyy do you people give a fuck what one person on Youtube thinks???? This woman has the same amount of actual clout as Lindsay Ellis* or Douglas Walker. No one cares what she says except for the folks that get so threatened by her, and the people that give her money.

*On a unrelated note, turns out these two have formed a friendship.

I mean I'm almost sounding borderline trollish, but why do you people care about this one woman and her views bias or unbiased? It's like getting ticked off at something Mark Levin or Rush Limbaugh says on the radio. It doesn't amount to anything, doesn't change anything, she accomplishes really nothing.

I still say to this day, Anita knows already what she doesn't like about video games. Instead of critically analyzing them, SHE SHOULD MAKE HER OWN. You can't change things outside the system, you gotta be apart of it, then you can try to influence it. fuck

The main difference I see between A.S. and other critics like Lindsay Ellis, Douglas Walker, MovieBob, or Yahtzee is their videos are opinions on specific sources in limited scope ie. a video, weird event, or game. Anita's approach is like criticizing all of film by pointing out the worst they have to offer. She is making an opinion beforehand, then finding specific examples to support her claim; using this "cherry-picking" approach you could "support" an opinion on anything, even if all you have as "evidence" is a few seconds long clip removed from context. /ironic sarcasm targeted at OP not intended, I swear...

If Lindsay Ellis said all young adult paranormal romance is trash, I imagine she would get the same treatment. Instead Lindsay and the rest of team NChick have called out specific examples of paranormal romance as trash while simultaneously defending the genre and criticizing the genre as having a lot of trite garbage; the whole 50 shades of Cthulhu subversion is a prime example, being trite as a form of parody and creating an event as a means of cultural satire, with a possible revenue stream as a reward for the effort.

*edit and semi-off topic: The backlash Serra Elinsen has received from the Lovecraft fans has some amazing parallels to Anita Sarkeesian.

I could draw the conclusion, as many have, that Anita is a B*, misrepresenting herself as a means to attack a gaming subculture, but she seems more intelligent than that, even if her content isn't. I wouldn't be surprised if it's revealed someday that all of this was a subversion on her part, calling out games in a shill manner as a means of drawing out all the immature juvenile behavior that she actually wants to criticize... either way the only valid response is to ignore her; or, if that is too hard, only point out when she states as fact something that is false; this means NOT ATTACKING her opinions.

As for the last bit about her making a game. There is an old saying, "Those who can't do, teach," but having spent a few years working with educators I've learned of another saying that follows, "Those who can't teach, complain". If there is one thing the world has taught me, it is that there is no shortage of people willing to complain, and an obscene amount of money in making yourself a victim through such behavior. Rush Limbaugh is an excellent example of someone who has made a lot of money by complaining and playing a victim under attack.

Now, having spent the day remembering who Anita Sarkeesian is, I will forget about her. At least until the next time she stirs the pot and makes the insecure "gamers" feel threatened.

*sigh, stuff like this is why I'm a misanthrope.

Yea basically she cherry picks evidence to make broad generalizations that aren't actually supported by evidence. She's the new Jack Thompson of video games, just remixed as a self proclaimed feminist.

Jack was all about how video games were murder simulators corrupting the minds of the youth. Both of them work from the principle of correlation is causation. After all if she's going to claim that princesses in games affects girls in real life, I guess murder simulators will make us...murderers irl?

But yes its clear women like her have learned the lesson of the womens basketball league. Its easier to just complain, because if test things in reality, like with the womens basketball league, and it fails, it tells you an awful answer you cannot acknowledge or deal with. You'll note that since that failure, its like the womens groups never pushed for such a thing, its like it never happened. Its why women like anita don't make games for other women modeled around their criticisms, they know it will fail. After all there are countless wealthy women out there now, happy to donate millions to all sorts of causes, yet funding game development targeting women seems to have no takers. If the assumptions by the anitas of the world are correct, and its only angry misogynist geeks and sexist tropes keeping women away from video games, then there are literally billions of dollars to be made from this untapped market. The total world market of video games is already closing on a hundred billion in revenue, if say just 20% more women started buying video games that would be a huge amount of profit to turn away from, yet there are no takers, its quite odd don't you think

Woah woah woah, isn't it a little harsh to compare her with the public enemy number one of gaming? Because I mean she's not always easy to agree with but she's not that disagreeable.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Woah woah woah, isn't it a little harsh to compare her with the public enemy number one of gaming? Because I mean she's not always easy to agree with but she's not that disagreeable.

Considering she claimed that women getting killed in games would encourage domestic violence. Is it really that hard to see why people would compare her to him?

 

[Evan Waters]

Woah woah woah, isn't it a little harsh to compare her with the public enemy number one of gaming? Because I mean she's not always easy to agree with but she's not that disagreeable.

Considering she claimed that women getting killed in games would encourage domestic violence. Is it really that hard to see why people would compare her to him?

Specific quote and context, please?

 

[SuperScrub]

Woah woah woah, isn't it a little harsh to compare her with the public enemy number one of gaming? Because I mean she's not always easy to agree with but she's not that disagreeable.

Considering she claimed that women getting killed in games would encourage domestic violence. Is it really that hard to see why people would compare her to him?

I don't remember her saying that. Can you refresh my memory with the video in which she said that?

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Specific quote and context, please?

I don't remember her saying that. Can you refresh my memory with the video in which she said that?

Second TvT video, it's hard to miss.

These stories conjure supernatural situations in which domestic violence perpetrated by men against women who?ve ?lost control of themselves? not only appears justified but is actually presented as an altruistic act done ?for the woman?s own good?.
Of course, if you look at any of these games in isolation, you will be able to find incidental narrative circumstances that can be used to explain away the inclusion of violence against women as a plot device. But just because a particular event might ?makes sense? within the internal logic of a fictional narrative ? that doesn?t, in and of itself justify its use. Games don?t exist in a vacuum and therefore can?t be divorced from the larger cultural context of the real world.

It?s especially troubling in-light of the serious real life epidemic of violence against women facing the female population on this planet. Every 9 seconds a woman is assaulted or beaten in the United States and on average more than three women are murdered by their boyfriends husbands, or ex-partners every single day. Research consistently shows that people of all genders tend to buy into the myth that women are the ones to blame for the violence men perpetrate against them. In the same vein, abusive men consistently state that their female targets ?deserved it?, ?wanted it? or were ?asking for it?,

Given the reality of that larger cultural context, it should go without saying that it?s dangerously irresponsible to be creating games in which players are encouraged and even required to perform violence against women in order to ?save them?.

Jog your memory? Please give me a good show of trying to explain this one away. This one always generates the more interesting excuses.

 

[SuperScrub]

Specific quote and context, please?

I don't remember her saying that. Can you refresh my memory with the video in which she said that?

Second TvT video, it's hard to miss.

These stories conjure supernatural situations in which domestic violence perpetrated by men against women who?ve ?lost control of themselves? not only appears justified but is actually presented as an altruistic act done ?for the woman?s own good?.
Of course, if you look at any of these games in isolation, you will be able to find incidental narrative circumstances that can be used to explain away the inclusion of violence against women as a plot device. But just because a particular event might ?makes sense? within the internal logic of a fictional narrative ? that doesn?t, in and of itself justify its use. Games don?t exist in a vacuum and therefore can?t be divorced from the larger cultural context of the real world.

It?s especially troubling in-light of the serious real life epidemic of violence against women facing the female population on this planet. Every 9 seconds a woman is assaulted or beaten in the United States and on average more than three women are murdered by their boyfriends husbands, or ex-partners every single day. Research consistently shows that people of all genders tend to buy into the myth that women are the ones to blame for the violence men perpetrate against them. In the same vein, abusive men consistently state that their female targets ?deserved it?, ?wanted it? or were ?asking for it?,

Given the reality of that larger cultural context, it should go without saying that it?s dangerously irresponsible to be creating games in which players are encouraged and even required to perform violence against women in order to ?save them?.

Jog your memory? Please give me a good show of trying to explain this one away. This one always generates the more interesting excuses.

Well I never said I agreed with everything she said, she is right about one thing though, Games don't exist in a vacuum and they can have an less than positive effect on society the difference between Jack Thompson and Anita is that Jack Thompson sought to censor and ban video games and Anita seeks change in the way video games portray 50 percent of the population through some mildly educational if somewhat boring video lectures that has sparked interesting debate all over the internet. And all I have to say, is that so wrong?

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Specific quote and context, please?

I don't remember her saying that. Can you refresh my memory with the video in which she said that?

Second TvT video, it's hard to miss.

These stories conjure supernatural situations in which domestic violence perpetrated by men against women who?ve ?lost control of themselves? not only appears justified but is actually presented as an altruistic act done ?for the woman?s own good?.
Of course, if you look at any of these games in isolation, you will be able to find incidental narrative circumstances that can be used to explain away the inclusion of violence against women as a plot device. But just because a particular event might ?makes sense? within the internal logic of a fictional narrative ? that doesn?t, in and of itself justify its use. Games don?t exist in a vacuum and therefore can?t be divorced from the larger cultural context of the real world.

It?s especially troubling in-light of the serious real life epidemic of violence against women facing the female population on this planet. Every 9 seconds a woman is assaulted or beaten in the United States and on average more than three women are murdered by their boyfriends husbands, or ex-partners every single day. Research consistently shows that people of all genders tend to buy into the myth that women are the ones to blame for the violence men perpetrate against them. In the same vein, abusive men consistently state that their female targets ?deserved it?, ?wanted it? or were ?asking for it?,

Given the reality of that larger cultural context, it should go without saying that it?s dangerously irresponsible to be creating games in which players are encouraged and even required to perform violence against women in order to ?save them?.

Jog your memory? Please give me a good show of trying to explain this one away. This one always generates the more interesting excuses.

Well I never said I agreed with everything she said, she is right about one thing though, Games don't exist in a vacuum and they can have an less than positive effect on society the difference between Jack Thompson and Anita is that Jack Thompson sought to censor and ban video games and Anita seeks change in the way video games portray 50 percent of the population through some mildly educational if somewhat boring video lectures that has sparked interesting debate all over the internet. And all I have to say, is that so wrong?

So you agree that she's using the same argument as Thompson about video-game violence causing real life violence?

 

[SuperScrub]

Specific quote and context, please?

I don't remember her saying that. Can you refresh my memory with the video in which she said that?

Second TvT video, it's hard to miss.

These stories conjure supernatural situations in which domestic violence perpetrated by men against women who?ve ?lost control of themselves? not only appears justified but is actually presented as an altruistic act done ?for the woman?s own good?.
Of course, if you look at any of these games in isolation, you will be able to find incidental narrative circumstances that can be used to explain away the inclusion of violence against women as a plot device. But just because a particular event might ?makes sense? within the internal logic of a fictional narrative ? that doesn?t, in and of itself justify its use. Games don?t exist in a vacuum and therefore can?t be divorced from the larger cultural context of the real world.

It?s especially troubling in-light of the serious real life epidemic of violence against women facing the female population on this planet. Every 9 seconds a woman is assaulted or beaten in the United States and on average more than three women are murdered by their boyfriends husbands, or ex-partners every single day. Research consistently shows that people of all genders tend to buy into the myth that women are the ones to blame for the violence men perpetrate against them. In the same vein, abusive men consistently state that their female targets ?deserved it?, ?wanted it? or were ?asking for it?,

Given the reality of that larger cultural context, it should go without saying that it?s dangerously irresponsible to be creating games in which players are encouraged and even required to perform violence against women in order to ?save them?.

Jog your memory? Please give me a good show of trying to explain this one away. This one always generates the more interesting excuses.

Well I never said I agreed with everything she said, she is right about one thing though, Games don't exist in a vacuum and they can have an less than positive effect on society the difference between Jack Thompson and Anita is that Jack Thompson sought to censor and ban video games and Anita seeks change in the way video games portray 50 percent of the population through some mildly educational if somewhat boring video lectures that has sparked interesting debate all over the internet. And all I have to say, is that so wrong?

So you agree that she's using the same argument as Thompson about video-game violence causing real life violence?

Why with the twisting of my words W.H.C.M, but yes I think she's using an argue similar but not quite the same. It's not like she's saying that video games outright encourage violence against women it's just that she's saying that video games no longer exist inside a vacuum and can either be a force for good or bad and when video games use outdated tropes like the DiD trope it can have negative effects on society, and unlike Jack Thompson she isn't using her arguments to ban games only to change the way females are portrayed.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Specific quote and context, please?

I don't remember her saying that. Can you refresh my memory with the video in which she said that?

Second TvT video, it's hard to miss.

These stories conjure supernatural situations in which domestic violence perpetrated by men against women who?ve ?lost control of themselves? not only appears justified but is actually presented as an altruistic act done ?for the woman?s own good?.
Of course, if you look at any of these games in isolation, you will be able to find incidental narrative circumstances that can be used to explain away the inclusion of violence against women as a plot device. But just because a particular event might ?makes sense? within the internal logic of a fictional narrative ? that doesn?t, in and of itself justify its use. Games don?t exist in a vacuum and therefore can?t be divorced from the larger cultural context of the real world.

It?s especially troubling in-light of the serious real life epidemic of violence against women facing the female population on this planet. Every 9 seconds a woman is assaulted or beaten in the United States and on average more than three women are murdered by their boyfriends husbands, or ex-partners every single day. Research consistently shows that people of all genders tend to buy into the myth that women are the ones to blame for the violence men perpetrate against them. In the same vein, abusive men consistently state that their female targets ?deserved it?, ?wanted it? or were ?asking for it?,

Given the reality of that larger cultural context, it should go without saying that it?s dangerously irresponsible to be creating games in which players are encouraged and even required to perform violence against women in order to ?save them?.

Jog your memory? Please give me a good show of trying to explain this one away. This one always generates the more interesting excuses.

Well I never said I agreed with everything she said, she is right about one thing though, Games don't exist in a vacuum and they can have an less than positive effect on society the difference between Jack Thompson and Anita is that Jack Thompson sought to censor and ban video games and Anita seeks change in the way video games portray 50 percent of the population through some mildly educational if somewhat boring video lectures that has sparked interesting debate all over the internet. And all I have to say, is that so wrong?

So you agree that she's using the same argument as Thompson about video-game violence causing real life violence?

Why with the twisting of my words W.H.C.M, but yes I think she's using an argue similar but not quite the same.

It's not twisting your words if I'm asking you whether that's what you think or not. Now for something else.

What makes you think I'm white? What makes you think I'm heterosexual? What makes you think I'm "cis gendered"? You have absolutely nothing to substantiate it which makes you calling anyone on this form W.H.C.M. look childish. Like a kid using a swear word to look more grown up even though they don't know what it means.

 

[SuperScrub]

Specific quote and context, please?

I don't remember her saying that. Can you refresh my memory with the video in which she said that?

Second TvT video, it's hard to miss.

These stories conjure supernatural situations in which domestic violence perpetrated by men against women who?ve ?lost control of themselves? not only appears justified but is actually presented as an altruistic act done ?for the woman?s own good?.
Of course, if you look at any of these games in isolation, you will be able to find incidental narrative circumstances that can be used to explain away the inclusion of violence against women as a plot device. But just because a particular event might ?makes sense? within the internal logic of a fictional narrative ? that doesn?t, in and of itself justify its use. Games don?t exist in a vacuum and therefore can?t be divorced from the larger cultural context of the real world.

It?s especially troubling in-light of the serious real life epidemic of violence against women facing the female population on this planet. Every 9 seconds a woman is assaulted or beaten in the United States and on average more than three women are murdered by their boyfriends husbands, or ex-partners every single day. Research consistently shows that people of all genders tend to buy into the myth that women are the ones to blame for the violence men perpetrate against them. In the same vein, abusive men consistently state that their female targets ?deserved it?, ?wanted it? or were ?asking for it?,

Given the reality of that larger cultural context, it should go without saying that it?s dangerously irresponsible to be creating games in which players are encouraged and even required to perform violence against women in order to ?save them?.

Jog your memory? Please give me a good show of trying to explain this one away. This one always generates the more interesting excuses.

Well I never said I agreed with everything she said, she is right about one thing though, Games don't exist in a vacuum and they can have an less than positive effect on society the difference between Jack Thompson and Anita is that Jack Thompson sought to censor and ban video games and Anita seeks change in the way video games portray 50 percent of the population through some mildly educational if somewhat boring video lectures that has sparked interesting debate all over the internet. And all I have to say, is that so wrong?

So you agree that she's using the same argument as Thompson about video-game violence causing real life violence?

Why with the twisting of my words W.H.C.M, but yes I think she's using an argue similar but not quite the same. It's not like she's saying that video games outright encourage violence against women it's just that she's saying that video games no longer exist inside a vacuum and can either be a force for good or bad and when video games use outdated tropes like the DiD trope it can have negative effects on society, and unlike Jack Thompson she isn't using her arguments to ban games only to change the way females are portrayed.

Good. Now for something else.

What makes you think I'm white? What makes you think I'm heterosexual? What makes you think I'm "cis gendered"? You have absolutely nothing to substantiate it which makes you calling anyone on this form W.H.C.M. look childish. Like a kid using a swear word to look more grown up even though they don't know what it means.

I never said it was meant to be an insult or a bad thing to be a W.H.C.M because if I really wanted it to be an insult I would have said White Heterosexual Cisgenedered Fat Virginal male (W.H.C.F.V.M) I'm just taking a guess at your race, sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex. Besides there's nothing inherently wrong with being a W.H.C.M it's just that when they cry foul on anyone that isn't a W.H.C.M approaching on their scared gaming place seeking change in the way they're portrayed, they act like they're a Black, Homosexual, Transexual, Woman (B.H.T.W) who fears that the Ku Klux Klan is going to lynch him. This gaming market will always have a place for W.H.C.Ms to play and develop video games the question is whether or not we can be more inclusive about who we let into our little funhouse.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

I never said it was meant to be an insult or a bad thing to be a W.H.C.M

Then if it's not an insult and you have no knowledge of my race, sexuality, and "mental gender", then stop calling me that. I prefer people refer to me by my name, Specter.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

I never said it was meant to be an insult or a bad thing to be a W.H.C.M

Then if it's not an insult and you have no knowledge of my race, sexuality, and "mental gender", then stop calling me that. I prefer people refer to me by my name, Specter.

Oh you're a spectre? Does this mean you're going to stop the Reapers and fornicate with a hot blue alien girl because if you do I want pictures.

Once again, I'll ask. Will you please refer to me by my name?

 

[Ticklefist]

If women feel empowered by her that's fine. Confident women are sexy. If they take it too far and become rude and demanding women then they'll get kicked to the curb like the overbearing bitches they've become. Status quo unchanged.

Edit: Posted before realizing the discussion had gone to the cuckoo clubhouse.

 

[Tony2077]

If women feel empowered by her that's fine. Confident women are sexy. If they take it too far and become rude and demanding women then they'll get kicked to the curb like the overbearing bitches they've become. Status quo unchanged.

Edit: Posted before realizing the discussion had gone to the cuckoo clubhouse.

it's funny they want equality yet some of them take after the worst we have to offer

 

[SuperScrub]

If women feel empowered by her that's fine. Confident women are sexy. If they take it too far and become rude and demanding women then they'll get kicked to the curb like the overbearing bitches they've become. Status quo unchanged.

Edit: Posted before realizing the discussion had gone to the cuckoo clubhouse.

It's a madhouse and everybody is invited until the mods close down this thread and Anita's detractors find "evidence" of her burning a Nintendo Entertainment System or something equally asinine and open a thread about that.

 

[Tony2077]

If women feel empowered by her that's fine. Confident women are sexy. If they take it too far and become rude and demanding women then they'll get kicked to the curb like the overbearing bitches they've become. Status quo unchanged.

Edit: Posted before realizing the discussion had gone to the cuckoo clubhouse.

It's a madhouse and everybody is invited until the mods close down this thread and Anita's detractors find "evidence" of her burning a Nintendo Entertainment System or something equally asinine and open a thread about that.

well they will find something even if they have to make it up. i think that this trope despite the bad points is needed not all female characters can be strong and take out all the antagonists